In the present case, the submission of the assessee before the Tribunal, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, is that the only reason which was given by the Assessing Officer for initiating reassessment proceedings was that the property was sold by the assessee for Rs.31 lacs
Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that Service tax is not required to be paid on goods used in the repairing process on which Excise duty and VAT has been paid on the value of the said goods, ignoring the fact that as per the contract the respondents were under an obligation to replace the damaged parts and to maintain the transformers in a proper working condition.
the writ petition, which has been admitted by an order passed the Division Bench on 6 August 2014, there is a challenge to the validity of Rule 73 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 on the ground that they are ultra vires the provisions of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and the Advocates Act, 1961 insofar as it permits persons who are not Advocates ‘to appear and represent’ before the authorities established under the Act of 2008.
Once the Assessing Officer is satisfied that a permanent establishment of the petitioner exists in India and business is being conducted from this permanent establishment, the attribution of profits is a necessary consequence.
Allahabad High Court in the case of Tax Lawyers Association Lko. Vs. State Of U.P. as a Interim Measure held that no person whosoever, may be permitted to advertise in the Newspaper or any leaflet, inviting assesses for the purpose of filing of return or arguing before the authority under the VAT Act. Any person, who is not a registered advocate, shall not be permitted to appear before the Authority under the VAT Act.
In the instant case, the transaction in question, was not cash transaction. It was merely book entries. The CIT(A) has called Remand Record from the AO, who vide report dated 05.01.1999, confirmed that the transaction in question, by mentioning that no cash was involved.
The maxim DIES DOMINICUS NON EAST JURIDICUS means Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings. It is a day which has been reserved for divine service from times immemorial. Therefore, as of practice ordinarily no judicial work or act is done on Sundays though ministerial
There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that the penalty is leviable under Section 271(1) (c) when any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The present is not a case of concealment of particulars of any income of the assessee.
Section 271(1)(c) empowers inter alia the Assessing Officer, where he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, to direct the payment of penalty. Sub-section (1B) was introduced by way of an amendment by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1989. Sub-section (1B) reads as follows
It is well settled that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal in nature and hence, no action under the Act can be taken unless a clear case of criminal contempt is made out.
